Mass LTC Restriction Definitions

Mr. MODERATOR "MIKE" I agree 100% with what you just posted.I did not mean for this question I had get to the point it has gotton too.I was just trying to point out that I and alot of people I have talked with have never heard of such cases"being charged carrying outside said restriction".Now CROSS-X " I applaud him" brought one up that he had won.It was a very interesting story and I thought it was very good reading!!!Does it mean that we can all go out and carry our guns concealed?NO!With that being said my IA told me it was alright for me to carry concealed to and from my pistol club.Am I going too?I might I might not.That is MY choice.If for some reason I am detained over this issue with LEO the last thing I am going to say is "my IA said I could".Now for some stupid reason a select few always seem to think they can interpert the law their way and thats the only way that this law should be interperted..I disagree.If you go to the GOAL site this very question is asked and answered.THERE ANSWER IS THEY DONT KNOW!!!!I just think this is a very good subject"on a legal side" to be dealt with.Because I dont agree with a few people "some lawyers also" does this make me out to be some QUOTE idiot" that thinks he can break laws and do whatever the hell he wants!!!NO I DONT!!Just because I dont agree with a couple of lawyers does not mean that these lawyers are wrong or right.In 1994 one of my best friends"a succesfull buisness owner" went to the BRAINTREE POLICE CHIEF to get his LTC.Chief said no way dont give them out period.Sorry.Hires a lawyer to fight his case mind you no record not even a parking ticket lawyer tells him he has every right to get a LTC.At the time the lawyer was one of the best in the state charged him 5000.00 and lost.Judge ruled police can refuse anyone they want.Lawyer was outraged and he even said the lawyer presented the best case anyone could ask for but still lost.He moved to a different town 2 years later and got his LTC-A ALP within 3 weeks.My point is that the POLICE/CHIEFS can say and do whatever they see fit and we have to put up with it because of the system.And I still would like to know if there are any other lawyers or members that have represented or have been charged with carryingout of there restriction??I still think this is a fair question.
 
drgrant said:
We can disagree all we want- the bottom line is that a restriction is defined by the issuing authority. This means, that if the chief wants to "let someone off" they have the capability to do so- because the IA is (going to be more than likely) the actual arbiter of whether or not a restriction was violated. EG, if your chief issues you a restricted permit, but then says "I don't care if you carry your gun in the woods" you're probably OK (for that purpose); problem is, since this is just a verbal thing, and not formalized, he could probably change his mind later on and get away with ripping your license away. Cases have come and gone that basically reaffirm that a restriction is basically whatever the IA wants it to be. They could say BOZO MAKEUP ONLY and it'd be valid [laugh]

So if your IA/Chief is a buttwad and doesn't want to delineate exactly what a restriction means, Then it is wise to assume the worst. Anything less than ALP/None is going to be shaky at best. For instance, what happens to permits issued by one IA, and then one anti chief is replaced by another anti chief? Will the 2nd anti, consider the restrictions to be the same?

WRT this issue, there are usually more questions than answers.
[laugh]

-Mike
Click to expand...
Wouldn't this be a great way to bust balls on an anti chief?

Demand, in writing (EXACTLY) what, where and when the IA meanings are pertaining to the restriction they impose, make it such a PITA for them that hopefully they would reconsider and abandon issuing restrictions.
Tell them you refuse to leave yourself open to inadvertently breaking the law.
If they deny you, take them to court.
 
That is a very good point 69HD.Name one ISSUING AUTHORITY THAT DEFINES the restriction.Someone posted earlier that BOSTON is now putting a restriction on there CLASS-A LTCS that says you CANNOT CARRY CONCEALED.
 
69hdfl said:
Wouldn't this be a great way to bust balls on an anti chief?

Demand, in writing (EXACTLY) what, where and when the IA meanings are pertaining to the restriction they impose, make it such a PITA for them that hopefully they would reconsider and abandon issuing restrictions.
Tell them you refuse to leave yourself open to inadvertently breaking the law.
If they deny you, take them to court.
Click to expand...

Well, "denial", again, is a matter of semantics/legal mechanics. They might not "deny" you, but issue you a restricted permit. As far as I know, you can't "take a restriction to court" so to speak, but I'm not 100% sure about that. You -can- appeal an outright denial, however. I think the anti gun PDs know this and they know that they get an upper hand by just restricting you instead of doing an outright denial. I don't think theres any way to pigeon hole an IA into "Issue me A/ALP, A/None, or just deny me altogether". If there was I would guess that everyone would be trying to use that wallhack to obtain an unrestricted license.

(Edit, while we're at it... Scriv, Cross-X, whoever... is it possible for someone to request an LTC-A with a "B rammer" town for instance, and then take the department/IA refusal to accept the application itself as a "de-facto" denial for purposes under the law? This might give ability to people dealing with b-rammers to take legal action... if they can at least get a formal denial applying for an A... )

More than likely a demand for a written request would be met by "wtf?" or "it means what it means" [rolleyes]; etc... it depends just how bad the given IA/Chief is. Those of the "anti but lesser a**h***" persuasion might actually give you an explanation, but I doubt it will be in writing. They could say something and then renege on it later on. Something I forgot to mention is I find it very difficult to take an IA at face value who is giving me a restricted license.... my default intuition will still tend to believe that an IA/Chief who issues a restricted license "on purpose" (read, they give the person a restricted LTC because they know what it does, and not because the person asked for it (I've run into some people who made the mistake of intentionally applying for a B or intentionally asking for a restriction, and some departments are more than happy to oblige the applicant shooting themselves in the foot. ) Such an IA with ill intent is probably going to stab the applicant in the back at the earliest opportunity; hell, if I want the paranoia to be really rampant, someone might even say that it is not a surprise if the IA is "setting someone up to fail" by cajoling them into a position where the IA can take the permit away. (I'll admit thats reaching, but the depths of government corruption in MA politics at many levels don't put this completely outside the realm of possibility.... especially in really bad places like Brookline, where the PD would rather flush your application down the toilet instead of process it. )

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Mike do you think the decision being made in WASHINGTON D.C. will have any effect on such states like Ma.NY.Ct.The reason I ask this is I think one of the briefs If thats what you call them is wether or not the guy can carry???So what I mean is right now there is a ban in D.C. so to speak but if the court rules that he can CCW then dont you think all the other states will try to get rid of the restrictions?I know it will be along time but I would think that this is big decision and could effect the whole country!!!
 
drgrant said:
Well, "denial", again, is a matter of semantics/legal mechanics. They might not "deny" you, but issue you a restricted permit. As far as I know, you can't "take a restriction to court" so to speak, but I'm not 100% sure about that. You -can- appeal an outright denial, however.
Click to expand...

This is what I was getting at.

More than likely a demand for a written request would be met by "wtf?" or "it means what it means" [rolleyes]; etc... it depends just how bad the given IA/Chief is.
Click to expand...
This is why I would stress the fact that the restrictions are too vague and not wanting to find myself in trouble.

I would think if enough applicants were to stick together and treat these restrictions in this manner, someone, be it judges (at appeals for denials) or state reps (if it was brought to their attention) would say WTF is going on?

I have a buddy that was being so jerked around by Milford PD on his LTC A hunting and target renewal that he called his state rep. His state rep called him back telling him he could expect it in a couple of weeks. When he received the LTC, it was Class A w/no restrictions.

Sometimes the squeaky wheel does get the grease.
 
38specialD said:
Mike do you think the decision being made in WASHINGTON D.C. will have any effect on such states like Ma.NY.Ct.The reason I ask this is I think one of the briefs If thats what you call them is wether or not the guy can carry???So what I mean is right now there is a ban in D.C. so to speak but if the court rules that he can CCW then don't you think all the other states will try to get rid of the restrictions?I know it will be along time but I would think that this is big decision and could effect the whole country!!!
Click to expand...

While I agree that the SCOTUS decision is a big deal, especially if it's in our favor, I doubt it will have any affect on any of these crap laws in the near future, especially if the supremes end up dispensing a very narrowly defined, weaseled out decision in favor of the 2nd amendment. Even if it was sweeping and expansionist kind of decision, it more than likely would not affect anything other than federal gun laws. There would have to be a long term trickle-down effect through other lawsuits/cases pushed around at state levels.

FWIW the main issue addressed in Heller vs DC has nothing to do with carry- the issue focuses around the fact that DC has an outright prohibition on "mere possession" in ones home of handguns that were not registered before the cutoff date was which, IIRC, sometime in 1976.

-Mike
 
I'm hoping that they decide that it's an individual right, because IMO that would give a case traction in Massachusetts when one person is treated differently than another.
 
WayneWong said:
I'm hoping that they decide that it's an individual right, because IMO that would give a case traction in Massachusetts when one person is treated differently than another.
Click to expand...

I hope so too, but it is unclear to me if the benefit of such a decision
will ever (eventually, via other cases) be held to compel our corrupt state government to change its ways. I imagine they would hang on so long that the feds would have to threaten to slap them off the
funding teat, or a very real possibility exists that someone in
power would serve some prison time. They will drag their feet as
long as they can before that, surely.

-Mike
 
69hdfl said:
This is what I was getting at.


This is why I would stress the fact that the restrictions are too vague and not wanting to find myself in trouble.

I would think if enough applicants were to stick together and treat these restrictions in this manner, someone, be it judges (at appeals for denials) or state reps (if it was brought to their attention) would say WTF is going on?

I have a buddy that was being so jerked around by Milford PD on his LTC A hunting and target renewal that he called his state rep. His state rep called him back telling him he could expect it in a couple of weeks. When he received the LTC, it was Class A w/no restrictions.

Sometimes the squeaky wheel does get the grease.
Click to expand...


Milford is supposed to be a pretty good town to deal with, isn't it????? damn, that sucks.
 
bostonasphalt2 said:
Milford is supposed to be a pretty good town to deal with, isn't it????? damn, that sucks.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure to tell you the truth.
This was about 5 or 6 years ago and they were in the middle of getting a new chief, things might be better now.
The one thing I am sure of, how my friend calling his state rep worked so well. [wink]
 
Goshen Mass Police Department website

Q. What reasons do licensing authorities (Police Chiefs) issue licenses for?
A. This is an issue that causes more problems between applicants and licensing authorities than all other issues combined. There are very strong feelings on both sides of this issue.

The licensing authority has the discretion to issue for any purpose he/she deems proper. That may include an unrestricted LTC issued for "All Lawful Purposes" or one with restrictions such as Target and Hunting, Sporting, Personal Protection, employment or any of a number of other restrictions. A violation can result in a $5000 fine plus loss of the LTC. The problem is that there are no statutory criteria for the imposed restrictions. As such, what "Sporting" means in one jurisdiction may have an entirely different meaning in another. Does it really mean just target and hunting? It does in some jurisdictions, while in other jurisdictions it includes hiking, camping and protection from rabid animals.
Can a person with a Target and Hunting or Sporting LTC defend themselves with a handgun in their home? Some Police Chiefs have said yes while others say no. This lack of clarity will likely cost an unsuspecting licensee a $5000 fine. A license issued for "All Lawful Purposes" eliminates the ambiguity of these restrictions. While some have argued that such a license is not allowed, the words "All Lawful Purposes" are not included in section 131 of chapter 140 as a reason for issuance. There is no statutory requirement to impose specific restrictions. They must be imposed only if the licensing authority deems that it is proper to do so. Again, the licensing authority might consider that if restrictions are appropriate because of suitability, he/she might be better served by denying the LTC altogether.

According to the Firearms Record Bureau, over three quarters of the departments in the state are issuing licenses for "All Lawful Purposes". This is also how the Police Chief in Williamsburg issues licenses to alleviate this problem. Departments issuing primarily "All Lawful Purpose" LTC’s still have the option of issuing restricted licenses where appropriate to certain individuals, or denying licenses entirely for suitability.
Click to expand...

A police department ( Williamsburg ) recognizing the ambiguity of restrictions.
Why can't other Chiefs in the state have such common-sense ?
 
Last edited:
VTpro said:
Egoshen Mass Police Department website



A police department ( Williamsburg ) recognizing the ambiguity of restrictions.
Why can't other Chiefs in the state have such common-sense ?
Click to expand...

*grabs stuff and moves*

THAT is what I call a level headed police department (and is actually what many try to use as a reason for requesting ALP!)

Ive never been so happy to read something on this forum!!!
 
The Licensing Officer in Waltham gave me an LTC Class A "Target & Hunting" and explicitly told me that he prefers I carry my handgun on my person while en route to the range and back. I asked him again to clarify and he said it can be on my body concealed when I walk out my door to my car, in my car, at the range and back to my home. I am going to try and get him to put his instructions in writing and on Waltham PD letterhead.
 
Realtor, I agree with you but I want to make sure I am within the law. A question I have is I have Target & Hunting but I would like to get Sporting as well because it seems to cover camping, hiking etc... Does anyone know if I can have that added after I receive the LTC? And again I live in Waltham and they only to T&H LTC's for 1st timers. Thanks.
 
Libertarian said:
The Licensing Officer in Waltham gave me an LTC Class A "Target & Hunting" and explicitly told me that he prefers I carry my handgun on my person while en route to the range and back. I asked him again to clarify and he said it can be on my body concealed when I walk out my door to my car, in my car, at the range and back to my home. I am going to try and get him to put his instructions in writing and on Waltham PD letterhead.
Click to expand...

If you get this letter, please let me know. I'll be requesting the same letter for me and my dad right after I hear you get the letter in writing. [wink]
 
So, after reading all of the above I have a dumb question: My Class A LTC states "Restrictions: None" ... my old one said "all lawfull purposes". Although I've never bothered to carry my handgun concealed, I'ts been my understanding that I can with this particular license. Is that correct?

I've read the laws and they are clear as mud. It seems that it's all about what a law does NOT say that tells you (or implies) what you CAN actually do [thinking].

So again, my simple question is: can I carry a concealed handgun?

Also, I read and hear that (if I can in fact CCW) you can't carry in schools, federal buildings and possibley other establishments ... where does it say that?

Finally, I see above discussion about Boston specifically not allowing CCW. But does that mean that nobody can CCW in Boston, or is it just the Boston issuing agent will not issue that privledge to Boston residents (even though it's a 2nd ammendment right, but that's a whole 'nother discussion!)? I.e., shouldn't my State issued LTC be good throughout Mass, including Boston?

I have always been unclear on this and I'm looking forward to your comments.
 
Skipnoid said:
So, after reading all of the above I have a dumb question: My Class A LTC states "Restrictions: None" ... my old one said "all lawfull purposes". Although I've never bothered to carry my handgun concealed, I'ts been my understanding that I can with this particular license. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
Yes.

So again, my simple question is: can I carry a concealed handgun?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Also, I read and hear that (if I can in fact CCW) you can't carry in schools, federal buildings and possibley other establishments ... where does it say that?
Click to expand...
For schools, that is in MGL Chapter 269 Section 10 Paragraph j, which reads, in part:

(j) Whoever, not being a law enforcement officer, and notwithstanding any license obtained by him under the provisions of chapter one hundred and forty, carries on his person a firearm as hereinafter defined, loaded or unloaded or other dangerous weapon in any building or on the grounds of any elementary or secondary school, college or university without the written authorization of the board or officer in charge of such elementary or secondary school, college or university shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. For the purpose of this paragraph, “firearm” shall mean any pistol, revolver, rifle or smoothbore arm from which a shot, bullet or pellet can be discharged by whatever means.
Click to expand...

Full text here: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/269-10.htm

Federal buildings is part of federal law and/or regulations. I don't have those citations.

Finally, I see above discussion about Boston specifically not allowing CCW. But does that mean that nobody can CCW in Boston, or is it just the Boston issuing agent will not issue that privledge to Boston residents (even though it's a 2nd ammendment right, but that's a whole 'nother discussion!)? I.e., shouldn't my State issued LTC be good throughout Mass, including Boston?
Click to expand...
You can carry in Boston. The policy of the Boston PD in issuing LTCs has no bearing on the legality of your permit, whether within or without the city limits of Boston.
 
Libertarian said:
Realtor, I agree with you but I want to make sure I am within the law. A question I have is I have Target & Hunting but I would like to get Sporting as well because it seems to cover camping, hiking etc... Does anyone know if I can have that added after I receive the LTC? And again I live in Waltham and they only to T&H LTC's for 1st timers. Thanks.
Click to expand...

what the hell? If they're going to neuter peoples' licenses in this state why do they have many different restrictions? each restriction is worded differently and each COP's take on the restriction is different! some of them say "Target & Hunting" means you can carry concealed to and from the range and others seem to imply it means you can't carry concealed anywhere. my restrictions aren't even spelled right. This is making things even more confusing than they already are with respect to gun laws in this police state (read: $hithole).

Yeah, MA should be the model for all licensing in the USA [thinking].
 
livefreeorhere said:
some of them say "Target & Hunting" means you can carry concealed to and from the range and others seem to imply it means you can't carry concealed anywhere.
Click to expand...
It means whatever the CLEO wants it to mean. Which might change from day to day.

my restrictions aren't even spelled right.
Click to expand...
It isn't a valid LTC unless there are mistakes on it. [laugh]

Back in the paper-laminated LTC days it was much worse -- spelling errors, white-out, etc.
 
Libertarian said:
The Licensing Officer in Waltham gave me an LTC Class A "Target & Hunting" and explicitly told me that he prefers I carry my handgun on my person while en route to the range and back. I asked him again to clarify and he said it can be on my body concealed when I walk out my door to my car, in my car, at the range and back to my home. I am going to try and get him to put his instructions in writing and on Waltham PD letterhead.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. Just realize that:

A. He has a VERY unorthodox interpretation of the law and he won't be around when you're face down on the pavement in a felony stop.

C. No other officer has any reason to (or is likely to) believe you, and even if they did, this guy's verbal statement to you means NOTHING legally to you, to them, or to the court.

D. When you've lost your license for "unsuitability" it won't matter to you that "he said" anything. Although, perhaps since he'd be the one to revoke it, if he really said that, he might then NOT revoke it. Still, sounds pretty tenuous. I wouldn't hang my license, $5K, a Lawyer fee etc...on it.

E. But...let's say, for a moment, that you actually get this malarkey on a piece of letterhead, you should know that NO other officer in MA or elsewhere is required to agree with OR abide by this letter. In 99% of the depts out there, ANY restriction precludes CC.


I'm not trying to poo poo your day. But you should have the perspective that what your being told sounds very very dubious and that the burden rests with you.

Don't know about you but I wouldn't take those odds.
 

Similar threads

Expired MA LTC = useful?
Replies
21
Views
511
67ray
67ray
C&R and Mass. FFL (but not Mass. dealer)
Replies
6
Views
212
milktree
milktree
Mass Legal Combat Shotguns
2
Replies
59
Views
2K
Knob Creek
Knob Creek
LTC Renewal Received in Natick
Replies
0
Views
171
RockStar
R
LTC references
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
paul73
paul73
Back
Top Bottom